PUNJAB AND SIND BANK Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question raised in this writ petition is whether the petitioner-Bank is entitled to adjust the gratuity amount of Rs. 1,61,700/- towards the outstanding housing loan amount of approximately Rs. 6,00,000/- of amardeep Singh (respondent No. 3), who was an officer of the petitioner-Bank and was compulsorily retired after having been found guilty of causing loss to the petitioner-Bank to the tune of Rs. 7,90,366/ -.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 3 was in the employment of the petitioner-Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which culminated into passing of the order dated July 23, 2001 (Annexure P-1), whereby he was compulsorily retired from service. The petitioner-Bank adjusted the gratuity amount of respondent No. 3 towards the housing loan taken by respondent No. 3. He filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Controlling authority') for directing the petitioner-Bank to release the gratuity amount withheld by it. The petitioner-Bank, in the written statement filed before the Controlling Authority, took the stand that it was within its competence to deduct the dues towards the housing loan from the gratuity amount. The Controlling Authority, vide its order dated August 30, 2004 (Annexure P-6)directed the petitioner-Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 1,61,700/- as gratuity and Rs. 50,193/- as interest for delayed payment. Against this order, the petitioner-Bank went in appeal before the Appellate Authority under the payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional labour Commissioner (Central), (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Authority'), vide order dated January 6, 2006 (Annexure P-7), the Appellate Authority confirmed the decision v, dated August 30, 2004 (Annexure P-4 ). In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner-Bank has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated August 30, 2004 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Controlling authority and dated January 6,2006 (Annexure p-7) passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the petitioner-Bank is entitled to recover the amount due to it from respondent no. 3 and that the gratuity amount was adjusted towards the outstanding housing loan of respondent No. 3 on his own request made vide application dated May 7,2004 (Annexure P-3 ).

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 did not choose to file any written statement.